Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[fix]

Homophobia: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

I am told that murder is generally considered extreme.

Ok, so having such a condition does not necessarily lead to murder. The term is used as a cudgel to stop debate. Also, I would think such a condition is very rare. Certainly not as common as the homosexual apologists would have us believe.

It is absolutely relevant when one is speaking about “crosses to bear” and one mentions a Biblical reference to marriage as the most natural vocation of humans. Nice try, though.

It is not relevant in the least. The condition of same sex attraction is a trial. That does not mean that others with trials have it “easier”. This notion of comparing crosses seems ugly and counter productive.

 

[fix]

Please do not take the above as in any way endorsing the homosexual agenda. I am simply presenting a reason why some can feel conflicted about how to handle the differing and sometimes conflicting roles of being the citizen of two states…the U.S. and Heaven.

Peace
James

Unfortunately you may be correct. We too often lead disintegrated lives. The conflict appears as we conform ourselves more to culture than to our faith.

 

[JRKH]

Unfortunately you may be correct. We too often lead disintegrated lives. The conflict appears as we conform ourselves more to culture than to our faith.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. I can be perfectly conformed to the faith and yet allow another the freedom to conform perfectly to their faith (or lack there of).
Living as a Christian in a secular state is bound to have such conflicts and we need to discern carefully the best way to navigate these.

Peace
James

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Homophobia: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

That is actually not the correct definiton of ‘homophobia.’. It is only what the ‘agenda-ists’ have decided. They use their language as a jackhammer to silence debate.

 

[fix]

I don’t necessarily agree with this. I can be perfectly conformed to the faith and yet allow another the freedom to conform perfectly to their faith (or lack there of).
Living as a Christian in a secular state is bound to have such conflicts and we need to discern carefully the best way to navigate these.

Peace
James

But, we have a clear guide on this issue.

 

[Crescentinus]

That is actually not the correct definiton of ‘homophobia.’. It is only what the ‘agenda-ists’ have decided. They use their language as a jackhammer to silence debate.

Indeed.
Whenever I debate with homosexualists and they call me a “homophobe”, I know exactly that I had won the debate.

 

[atheistgirl]

That is actually not the correct definiton of ‘homophobia.’. It is only what the ‘agenda-ists’ have decided. They use their language as a jackhammer to silence debate.

Perhaps you’d like to give us the ‘‘correct’’ definition of homophobia in that case.

Sarah x

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Perhaps you’d like to give us the ‘‘correct’’ definition of homophobia in that case.

Sarah x

What was stated is what Miriam Webster has. A phobia of any kind constitutions and irrational fear of something, so I’d say the definition as previously stated stands.

That said, he is correct that the term is inappropriately applied to people who simply state that homosexual activities are inherently wrong, which is a matter of faith and natural law, and has absolutely nothing to do with fear, irrational or otherwise. Additionally, it is often used in attempt to cut off debate when those in favor of homosexual activities are unable to come up with a logical rebuttal to an argument. It is an emotional term, and has no place in civil debate or discourse (unless, of course, the person truly is homophobic, in which case his argument probably won’t be rational to begin with.)

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I really really want to contribute to this conversation, but I fear that I’m likely to write waaay too much. I want to re-emphasize to myself that this thread is about “ceding too much ground.” I believe that has indeed happened and I wonder if the cat can ever again be put back into the bag (not my metaphor, but it works).

I’ll start with this: I was an undergraduate diocesan seminarian in the 90’s. Even though I have learned that my experience was not unique, it was not universal. My first day at the seminary I was hit on by a classmate in my own dorm room as I was unpacking. I resisted and when I got angry the classmate not only backed down, but claimed that he was kidding. We left my room together to find another seminarian standing just outside the door waiting for us. This seminarian claimed that he was out there waiting to see if I would have “fallen for it.” What I know now is that I was being informally “vetted” as it were.

That was day one. People have asked me why I didn’t report it. Here’s what I know now. The highest posts in my seminary were held by homosexual priests. I gave those classmates of mine the benefit of the doubt, but I know now that even had I reported it, little would have been done.

I knew when I started this post that too much summary would probably lessen the impact of what I’m trying to say about “ceding too much ground.” I know that in the past (and perhaps now) there was a culture of DADT (don’t ask; don’t tell) in the seminary system. There have been MMPI tests given for years of course, but they are not perfect. I know that my seminary had a “gay” population of at least 30-40%. At least that. There are too many branches that can be developed from this. I used to believe that a man could be a good priest and suffer from what we’re now calling SSA. Not so sure anymore. I believe that there was, in some areas, an attempt by SSA/gay clergy to influence church culture for their benefit, not necessarily the church’s. I believe that happens still to this day and we need to watch for it. This thread is about “ceding too much ground.” I have to say based on my own experiences that I’ve seen at least a few subtle attempts in my time by SSA or gay laity/clergy to “take” ground, specifically by downplaying or outright lying about the nature of homosexuality.

I need to end this post, but I want it to be known that I’m not talking about any kind of vainglorious retributive strike. Homosexuality is a sin, just like masturbation and pornography viewing (I’ve been guilty of this), just like drunkardliness or heterosexual adultery et. al. There has been an overly deep fascination with homosexuality in recent years and sometimes I think we do put too much focus there while forgiving heterosexual vice which seems to us heteros as more sympathetic.

We must behave as Christ in all things, and not like Machiavelli. So much more to say…

 

[JRKH]

In connection with the OP’s excellent posting and the terms used…I’m not so much concerned with the use of “gay” or LGBT and such as I am with the use of terms like homophobic. The reason that homophobic is a problem is simply because it is often times not a statement of fact based on some define criteria. Rather it is used in one of two ways. As an accusation that would require proof, or as a “red herring/straw man” to deflect a discussion.

It is sad that such comments are made and repeated in the media but that is the nature of the media today. I say this because it is clear that the media has been for many years, not a simple conveyor of information so much as it is a purveyor of controversy. Conflict grabs headlines and those who are rewarded with headlines will continue the behavior that gets rewarded…There is nothing complicated about this…
For this reason what is reported and discussed is often very far from anything that will actually move a conversation forward.

Peace
James

 

[CrimsonThorn]

That is absurd and extremely offensive. It is certainly not a charitable mindset to any of the groups mentioned. Pornography and masturbation addicts can conceivably overcome that addiction and get married. A homosexual may never have that possibility, and so the situations are incomparable. Furthermore, there is agency involved in pornography and masturbation that there is not is pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality.

That’s a pretty hard assumption you’re making about chronic masturbators. While they have the legal right to get married, it isn’t unheard of that some people never get married for never having found “the one.” For them, masturbation could very well be a lifelong struggle. The cross is no heavier for the homosexual than for the masturbator. Single people are discriminated against too in a variety of ways. The cross is no heavier.

And then you have people who one day do indeed get married and still struggle with masturbation. It can be a lifelong battle and the cross is no heavier.

At the end of the day, the OP is right. The gay agenda just has a well funded PR manager.

 

[JRKH]

But, we have a clear guide on this issue.

Yes we do…:thumbsup…Though I’m afrad that some have trouble seeing the clarity in the guide…

Peace
James

 

[Baelor]

They all fall under the lines of sexual sin.

Raping someone and fornication are both sexual sins, but not to distinguish between them is idiotic. We could say that all sins are sins, or even that all sins are venial or grave, but that is not the only productive division.

Yes, a homosexual’s trials will likely last longer than someone addicted to pornography or masturbation; and yes the latter two are likely easier to overcome, but in the end they are all crosses that need born.

And they have different effects, as I stated above – the porn addict may marry, the homosexual, not so much. To deny this difference is very problematic.

Someone should not be exempted simply because their cross is heavier, nor should they be treated any differently (either positively or negatively) as a result of the nature of their cross.

No one is suggesting that.

 

[Baelor]

Then people are by nature homophobic. Is there a reason that children tend to be naturally repelled to the idea of homosexuality?

I am an adult and still think that heterosexual sex is repellant, so I fail to see why I should accept your claim at a factual level.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant. Thinking that homosexual sex is disgusting is hardly “extreme.” Nor is it an aversion to “homosexual people.” The definition is fine.

I say that we tend to silence our natural consciences and rationalize away our natural disgust for the sake of tolerance. Killing is bad, but disgust is irrational and seems to be our conscience’s way of informing us that this is disordered.

Being disgusted at another human being and not his actions is uncharitable and contrary to Christ’s teaching through the Church.

 

[bri89]

Then people are by nature homophobic. Is there a reason that children tend to be naturally repelled to the idea of homosexuality?

I say that we tend to silence our natural consciences and rationalize away our natural disgust for the sake of tolerance. Killing is bad, but disgust is irrational and seems to be our conscience’s way of informing us that this is disordered.

Children are naturally repelled by homosexuality? Not sure about that. When I was a very little girl, 6 or so, another little girl in the neighborhood used to practice kissing on me and on her life-size female doll all the time.

 

[Portrait]

Homophobia is generally a misused term though let’s face it. It is a stick to beat people with.

Dear John of Woking,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Hear, hear to your remark above, which is bang on target.

To brand a man a ‘homophobe’ because he denounces homosexual aberrant acts on Christian grounds, is not dissimilar to using the term ‘troll’ on the interweb as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking the proponent. Both, dear friend, are instances of people flaunting their annoyance at opposing viewpoints (by which they have usually been thrown off balance) and trying to score cheap debaters points at the expense of their antagonist.

Invariably, calling a chap a homophobe is an attempt to halt rational debate of an issue by shifting the focus to either one of the participants. In doing so they dismiss another man’s arguments based upon some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals. It is, as you quite correctly say dear friend, “a stick to beat people with”. In any event, even if a man did entertain an irrational fear of homosexuals that would not ipso facto diminish his cogent arguments against homosexual vice one iota.

However, the charge of homophobia, frequently leveled against God-fearing Christian people nowadays, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The vast majority of those who feel compelled on Christian grounds to denounce homosexual acts of depravity, are not at all fearful of homosexuals. Moroever, one can profoundly disagree with something without necessarily fearing it, thus the devious ploy to close down legitimate debate falls jolly flat. It is nothing more, dear friend, that an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing the spotlight on the one who proposed the arguments, whilst trying to proclaim some moral high ground against him. Surely this says more about the chap using the abusive epithet than against the one whom the abuse is directed.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Children are naturally repelled by homosexuality? Not sure about that. When I was a very little girl, 6 or so, another little girl in the neighborhood used to practice kissing on me and on her life-size female doll all the time.

That’s not homosexuality.

Little boys also can hold hands with one another and it is not sexual in the least.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Perhaps you’d like to give us the ‘‘correct’’ definition of homophobia in that case.

Sarah x

From an online dictionary:

plural homos

Definition of HOMO

: any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)
Origin of HOMO

New Latin Homin-, Homo, from Latin, human being — more at homage
First Known Use: 1591

It is NOT what the militants say it is. I refuse to adopt their terms, any more than I call abortion ‘women’s health care.’

There is nothing loving or charitable about hijacking both the language and the culture.

 

[kozlosap]

Homophobia is generally a misused term though let’s face it. It is a stick to beat people with.

Yes, like Matthew Shephard and those who were bullied long enough that they saw no other way out but suicide

 

[bri89]

That’s not homosexuality.

Little boys also can hold hands with one another and it is not sexual in the least.

I don’ t know. She was in an innocent way trying to imitate acts that she knew were sexual, like removing the clothes from the doll etc. She thought she was “doing it” as she would have said. It was innocent but she was at the same time precocious. My point being the thought of practicing on another girl didn’t repel her.